Twenty-something Twitter employees with Starbucks lattes are now the authorities in law and science versus respected, long-time attorneys who have fought corruption their entire lives.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan is an Advocate-on-Record for the Supreme Court of India. He is one of few people allowed by law to plead for or against litigants before the country’s highest court. Mr. Bhushan could have made millions working as a corporate or civil lawyer. But instead he has worked as a human rights attorney helping those most in need. Mr. Bhushan’s distinguished career has led to 2.1 million Twitter followers and an engaged, international audience. Twitter did not get the memo.
The meta-analysis “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” was published in the peer-reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses in November. Science Direct re-published the article in January. In other words, it isn’t even a “new” study, per se. Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim of the Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, authored the study.
Sports journalist Jason Whitlock has been locked out of his Twitter account for daring to criticise the Marxist founder of Black Lives Matter who recently spent millions on FOUR new homes.
Whitlock slammed Twitter’s actions, emphasising that “BLM is one of Big Tech’s sacred cows,” adding “I’ve been harping on the fraudulence and the financial grift of BLM for years.”
“I think Twitter has been looking for an excuse to de-platform me,” Whitlock further told the Daily Mail.
In further comments, Whitlock noted that he isn’t going to remove the tweet at the behest of Twitter.
“They want you to remove the tweet to start your 12 hour sentence. Why should I remove the tweet? They have already removed it. I sat back and said I’m going to do nothing, and see where this story goes.” Whitlock stated.
“I’m going to play Nelson Mandela in the Twitter jail,” he added.
Whitlock also urged that BLM leaders are “making millions of dollars off the backs of these dead black men who they wouldn’t spit on if they were on fire and alive.”
The Pentagon is looking into better screening recruits’ and service members’ social media as part of its effort to get rid of “extremism” in the United States military, according to a recent memo from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
The Pentagon released the memo on Friday afternoon, approximately 60 days after Austin ordered a force-wide “stand-down” for commanders to discuss extremism in the military with troops after some military veterans took part in protests at the Capitol on January 6.
The Pentagon has never defined exactly what “extremism” means or given an estimate of how many “extremists” there are in the military — which defense officials have said was part of what Austin wanted to get a better grasp on during the unprecedented stand-down.
Friday’s memo, dated April 9, is Austin’s first action taken since the end of the stand-down and outlines immediate steps to be taken, as well as the establishment of a “Countering Extremism Working Group (CEWG),” which will have a representative from each military service.
One of the CEWG’s four lines of efforts (LOE) includes pursuing better screening of troops’ and recruits’ social media:
This LOE will examine the Department’s pursuit of scalable and cost effective capabilities to screen publically [sic] available information in accessions and continuous vetting for national security positions. The LOE will make recommendations on further development of such capabilities and incorporating algorithms and additional processing into social media screening platforms. This LOE will also endeavor to develop policy to expand user activity monitoring of both classified and unclassified systems.
Kirby said the Pentagon is looking to do that in a “legal, lawful way.”
I posted Episode 398 of The Corbett Report podcast, “Science Says,” around 10 PM Japanese Standard Time on Friday, April 9th, 2021, and then went to bed. Sometime shortly after midnight, the main Corbett Report channel was removed from YouTube.
And, just like that, 14 years of work—some 1700+ videos, 569,000+ subscribers and 90 million+ video views—was erased from the digital ether. . . . Well, the GooTube portion of that digital ether, anyway.
Given that I’ve been promoting YouTube alternatives since at least 2009, and given that I have made video after video after video after video after video warning my audience that I would be banned from GooTube, and given that I even delivered a presentation last year noting that The Library of Alexandria is on Fire, it’s safe to say that this news did not catch me off guard. Learning about the banning after waking up on Saturday morning, my only thought was, “Well, that took longer than I expected.”
Indeed, it was not surprising in any sense that this was the report that led to GooTube purging my main channel. When you release a video on an account that already has two strikes for information that “contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO) or local health authorities’ medical information about COVID-19” and that video itself contains information calling those very authorities’ pronouncements into question, you better believe the thought that this might be your last YouTube upload crosses your mind when you push that publish button. Heck, the “offending” podcast even centers around an op ed comparing COVID skeptics to terrorists and calling for the UN to mount a “counteroffensive” against them. Of course this video was going to be censored.
The Australian government is mulling a proposal which would require citizens to provide at least two forms of identification if they want to use social media, under the guise of ‘battling online bullying’ and more easily report users to authorities.
Under the guise of preventing online bullying, the Morrison government’s plan would require ‘100 points of identification’ in order to use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram – and online dating platforms such as Tinder, according to news.com.au. To satisfy the ‘100 points’ requirement, citizens would need to combine ‘Category 1’ methods of identification (birth certificate, passport, citizenship papers) with ‘Category 2’ ID (Valid government-issued license, public employee photo ID, doctor’s note).
…but, constituents to remain fair game for abuse from party apparatchiks.
A colleague forwarded me the text of an article from Blackrocks Reporter, which covers Canadian politics from Ottawa, our capitol.
It’s a report on Federal Heritage Minister Steven Guibeault’s ongoing vendetta against non-conforming political speech on the internet, in which he’s calling for censorship of “hurtful” comments against politicians and implementation of an internet killswitch to facilitate it.
Blackrocks is behind a paywall, permit me to quote it here:
‘Federal internet censors should target hurtful words against politicians, says Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault. The Minister added pending regulations may include an internet kill switch to block websites deemed hurtful, but called it a “nuclear” option.
“We have seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families,” said Guilbeault. “I have seen firsthand alongside other Canadians the damaging effects harmful content has on our families, our values and our institutions. As a dad and a stepdad to six kids, I know more can and should be done to create a safer online environment.”
Guilbeault made his remarks in a podcast sponsored by Canada 2020, an Ottawa think tank affiliated with the Liberal Party. Legislation to censor internet content will be introduced shortly, he said.
“I am confident we can get this adopted,” said Guilbeault. “Once the legislation is adopted, clearly creating a new body, a new regulator like that in Canada, would take some time.”’
The same story is covered here by the Post Millienial (the rest of Canada’s “approved media”, as in the ones who received hundreds of millions in tax breaks and subsidies from the Federal Government in the run up to the last election, are not giving it a lot of airtime for some reason).
During an appearance at the World Economic Forum Global Technology Governance Summit 2021, an event where more than 40 governments and 150 companies meet to ensure “the responsible design and deployment of emerging technologies,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki expressed her support for tech platforms moderating content that’s “technically legal but could be harmful” and praised global coalitions that help Big Tech coordinate and automate their censorship efforts.
Wojcicki said that when tech companies comply with the law, there are still “issues around speech” and suggested that these issues should be addressed by private corporations.
“I see a lot of issues around speech and what should or should not be allowed on platforms for example,” Wojcicki said. “And that’s a really tough area. Now, certainly countries pass certain laws and we comply with all the laws that the different countries pass but a lot of times, there’s content that’s legal but could be seen as harmful. And it’s hard for governments to necessarily find the right way to regulate it.”
She then proposed YouTube’s model of privately policing what the platform deems to be COVID-19 “misinformation” as an effective way to handle this content that’s “legal but could be harmful.”